Garland v. State
| Citation | 263 Ga. 495,435 S.E.2d 431 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. S93A1024,S93A1024 |
| Parties | GARLAND v. The STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Anna Blitz, Atlanta, for Garland.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Doris L. Williams-McNeely, Vivian D. Hoard, Asst. Dist. Attys., Atlanta, for State.
Joseph Larry Garland was convicted of kidnapping and committing numerous sex offenses against his five-year-old niece. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which issued an opinion in which the Judges were divided 4-4 on the issue of whether the trial court erred in refusing to excuse a juror for cause. One judge was disqualified. On motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals vacated the opinion and transferred the case to this court pursuant to Article VI, Section V, Paragraph V of the 1983 Georgia Constitution. This portion of the Constitution provides that, "[i]n the event of an equal division of the Judges [of the Court of Appeals] when sitting as a body, the case shall be immediately transmitted to the Supreme Court."
1. During voir dire, the potential jurors were asked if they or any of their friends had been the victim of a crime. Potential juror Susan Ott responded that she had a friend whose children had been sexually abused by their father. After reading the indictment, the trial court inquired whether the charges listed in the indictment changed the opinions of any of the jurors with regard to their abilities to be impartial. Ott responded that the fact that she was pregnant in addition to the circumstance previously mentioned made her doubt her ability to be impartial. When asked whether she could listen to the evidence in the case and base her decision on this evidence, the juror repeatedly stated that she would "try." When asked by defense counsel whether she would be able to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence, Ott responded, Defense counsel moved that the juror be stricken for cause.
The trial court then engaged in a lengthy colloquy with Ott to determine her ability to be impartial in arriving at a verdict. Ott repeatedly stated that she would "try" to put her feelings aside, and concluded by saying, "I would have to do it based on the evidence."
This court has held that
[b]efore a juror can be disqualified for cause, it must be shown that an opinion held by the potential juror is so fixed and definite that the juror will be unable to set the opinion aside and decide the case based upon the evidence or the court's charge upon the evidence. Johnson v. State, 262 Ga. 652, 653 (424 SE2d 271) (1993); Chancey v. State, 256 Ga. 415, 425 (349 SE2d 717) (1986); Westbrook v. State, 242 Ga. 151, 154 (249 SE2d 524) (1978).
Further, the decision to strike a juror for cause lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Wilcox v. State, 250 Ga. 745, 301 S.E.2d 251 (1983). Based on the record before us, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike Ott. Ott's testimony does not show that her opinions or biases were so fixed that she could not set them aside and decide the case based on the evidence.
Four members of the Court of Appeals stated that the case should be reversed, concluding that "the [trial] judge left the record void of evidence to support his ruling that the juror should not be excused for cause." Slip op. at 5. In reaching this conclusion the Court of Appeals relied on the statement in Lively v. State, 262 Ga. 510, 511, 421 S.E.2d 528 (1992), that
[w]hen ruling on a potential juror's qualifications, the trial court must make a factual determination based on all the circumstances known to the court, including, but not limited to, the juror's own opinion of his impartiality.
In Lively we held that it was error for the trial court to refuse to strike for cause a potential juror who was the victim's employer, and who had served as a pall bearer at her funeral. Further, the potential juror and the victim had discussed the victim's relationship with the defendant. The trial court, apparently, based its decision solely on the potential juror's own statement that he could be impartial.
Our conclusion in Lively that a factual determination was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeYoung v. State
...trial counsel were not deficient in failing to move to excuse her. McClain v. State, supra at (1), 477 S.E.2d 814; Garland v. State, 263 Ga. 495(1), 435 S.E.2d 431 (1993). Next, DeYoung contends that during the guilt-innocence phase, his attorneys were ineffective when they cross-examined H......
-
Wellons v. State
...We find no error. The decision to strike a juror for cause lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. See Garland v. State, 263 Ga. 495, 496, 435 S.E.2d 431 (1993). The court did not abuse its discretion with respect to any of the five jurors, whose voir dire shows that none of them h......
-
Presnell v. State
...510 S.E.2d 816 (1999) (decision to excuse a potential juror for cause lies within sound discretion of trial court); Garland v. State, 263 Ga. 495(1), 435 S.E.2d 431 (1993). 4. Presnell complains that the trial court erred by refusing to excuse for cause ten prospective jurors, Fowler, Feust......
-
Arevalo v. State
...based upon the evidence and the trial court's charge. Fults v. State, 274 Ga. 82, 85(3), 548 S.E.2d 315 (2001); Garland v. State, 263 Ga. 495, 496(1), 435 S.E.2d 431 (1993). We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in removing this third prospective juror for cause. See Garl......